Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Not really. Seems pretty Empirey to me, at least. Just like most of TFA, it just seems like the OT with new name tags slapped on everything. Instead of Empire, Rebellion, and Tattooine, we have First Order, Resistance, and Jakku. You're swapping visual tropes & story beats with setting details. In the original trilogy, the Empire ran the galaxy. The New Republic is the official galactic authority by Episode 7. The Empire was the legitimate government - more or less - whereas the First Order is not. If the SW Galaxy is Germany in 1932, the New Republic is the Weimar Republic, the First Order is the Nazi Party, and the Resistance is the Widerstand or the Maquis. We'll have to agree to disagree. Shaky analogies aside, from what we *actually see in the film*, the First Order is a large, evil force that holds most of the cards, the Resistance is a small, but charismatic bunch of freedom fighters, and everyone else gets less than a second thought. If you don't see the (to my viewing obvious, even ham-fisted) parallels to the OT, there's nothing I can (or want to) do to change that, but as far as the feeling the movies convey, they couldn't be more similar.
  2. From what you describe, I'd say to do what myself and many of my friends do: ignore the new canon, and work within the realm of the EU. You can borrow freely from the new canon, but in the case of any conflicts, consider the EU to take precedence over the new canon. From what you're describing, it looks like there's precious little that the new canon has to offer. Since the Disney buyout, the vast majority of games I've taken part in have approached the entire setting as more of a "choose your own adventure", which is honestly, a pretty fun way to approach Star Wars.
  3. Not really. Seems pretty Empirey to me, at least. Just like most of TFA, it just seems like the OT with new name tags slapped on everything. Instead of Empire, Rebellion, and Tattooine, we have First Order, Resistance, and Jakku.
  4. Unfortunately for me, as time goes on, I find that the thing I dislike most about the FFG SWRPG system is the FFG SWRPG system itself. It's not necessarily broken, but I find that all of my subjective, specific gripes with it stem from the basic fact that it simply doesn't suit my style or thought process nearly as well as any of the WotC systems (even Saga) or WEG's D6. I must qualify this position by saying I think that FFG has done (and continues to do) a fantastic job: the system is well on its way to being fully fleshed out, the books themselves are gorgeous, and I do believe they've made a serious and largely successful effort to capture the spirit of the setting. (LoNH in particular is a 'glorious jewel'.) That said, though, it's the core of the system and the way it's implemented that just don't sit well with me. The whole advantage/disadvantage system, pretty much everything about how combat works, everything in space, and the Force in general. I didn't like talent trees in Saga, and I don't like them here. I dislike what I feel are the very narrow scope of each specialization, and what I feel is needless crunch in some areas and over-simplification in others. It's a bummer, really, because I was thrilled to find out FFG was doing a new SWRPG after WotC, and I've given it an honest effort since launch (and have nearly every book in the EotE and AoR lines), but over the past few months, each time I take my still-developing campaign ideas and try to translate even very general plot arcs to the FFG system, I'm continually frustrated, and it just seems to be a case where my brain is wired differently than the mechanics of the system...so, when it *is* finally time for me to launch my campaign, it'll probably use the WotC revised core rules, or the WEG D6 system, and use the FFG material strictly for fluff and reference.
  5. Thing is...there's two kinds of smuggling: where there's an objection to the cargo, and where there's an objection to the location. Of course, this leaves open the questions of who's objecting, why they're objecting, and whether it's the pick-up, drop-off, or both, in terms of location. Also, there's times where it's only the specific intersection of cargo and location that makes it smuggling...for example, a hold full of salt is a boring cargo, spare parts and droids to Cona is a standard run...a hold full of salt to Cona is big trouble (if you get caught), and honestly, the regulation is there for good reason. Then of course there's economic/corporate interests...smuggling bootleg bacta off Thyferra, for example. Once you get offworld, you're home free, can sell nearly anywhere in the galaxy (as a legal carge), and it's highly profitable (because you didn't pay the inflated rates on the planet to obtain and transport it legally). I could also see an interesting adventure in "enlightening" a world being kept in the dark by the Empire...perhaps the REpublic declared martial law on the world, using it as a base during the Clone Wars...with the Empire, the local Moff has totally cut off contact between that planet and the galaxy at large, keeping them under the illusion that the war is going badly, and forcing them into perpetual indentured servitude in factories to "support the war effort". Enter our intrepid heroes, smuggling in news from the outside galaxy, modern communications equipment (strictly off-limits to citizens), etc. which opens their eyes and starts planting the seeds of rebellion, leading to more necessary and more daring smuggling operations to deliver weapons, medical supplies, armor, droids, etc. Finally, there's the option of an oppressive local government, imposing stricter regulations than even the Empire, and in more targeted ways. Perhaps the planet is ruled by a particularly religious sect that has declared certain things as "unclean", or perhaps a ruling collective that imposes some sort of program of forced uniformity, such that luxury items, different foods, etc. are all off-limits. There's really no limit to the types of things that can be smuggled, there just needs to be a reason for someone in power to object to free, unregulated trade in a particular good or service.
  6. 1) Over the course of a human lifespan in a similar environment? 2) How long does that take? Is a droid going to fall apart without routine maintenance quicker than a human will die without air, water, and food? 3) Are these repairs normally done? By the owners? Or do they just get a new one? If you're going to consider these parts as a failure of continued unassisted existence, should you not also count food, air, and clean water? Also, what's the minimum threshold of functionality? If an arm breaks down, the droid can still continue functioning with its core intact. If a human's arm is crushed, cut off, or infected, this jeopardizes the rest of the system. 4) How long does that take? If it's over the course of many decades (R2 units were at least popular enough for royalty by 40 BBY and still in their heyday by 3 ABY at a bare minimum), then you're back to the "same ship" side of the Ship of Thesus spectrum. If you change out 1 or 2 major parts per decade and 300 years later the droid is entirely different parts than it started with, how is it any less the same droid compared to a human whose cells naturally age, die, and are replace by new ones? Ultimately, the only way that an argument that a human is more robust than a droid will hold water is if you either stack the deck in the human's favor or move the goalposts to a specific position where the criteria for success are defined by the human's strengths. You've already said that a persistent, transferable programming doesn't count because the parts are different...and that parts will need to be replaced. Is the implication that the moment you replace a wire or gasket or servo that the droid is no longer the same droid? If so, the human loses the contest within moments, as cells die. Are we talking major parts that are essential to core function? If so, a droid needs only power and an undamaged core. Are we talking some arbitrary middle sized part that will be fine with regular maintenance...but that we're denying that maintenance while giving our hypothetical human air, food, and water whenever they need it? I think your whole argument rests in your assumption that droids are fragile, sensitive, failure-prone objects, when all of the information we have in the setting suggests otherwise. Even giving you a lot of assumption ground, there's still no evidence that even a fairly fragile droid, in the same environment and with equivalent resources to a human, would cease to function before the human. It's just not so. Human beings are far, far more resource intensive than a droid, and it's plain to see. Certainly, the biological human body provides it's owner with plenty of unique advantages in exchange for all those resources, but in survival terms, that resource demand is a huge liability.
  7. Again, you're assuming (without much in the way of evidence) that the business model is to keep it cost-effective to repair rather than replace, implying that you either didn't read, or didn't understand the post. I'm not saying that there's definitely no repair market, just that it's not something you can just assume, go on to assume how and why it works, and use those assumptions to make declarations about The Way Things Work. In an extreme example of the case I outlined, it'd also be completely possible that a droid manufacturer sees no economic incentive to offer repair parts and components for sale at all. They've got their factories dialed in to the point that they are making part A at a rate where every single one that passes inspection has a droid waiting to install it on. Offering spares of this part for sale would mean another branch of the assembly and distribution and ultimately a net loss of efficiency, so they just don't do it. You want to repair the droid? Either you're totally on your own, you send it to one of their authorized repair facilities (who will likely scrap it, do a memory transfer, and tell you the issue couldn't be fixed), or you take their suggestion and scrap it yourself. This, naturally would be less practical way out on the rim, which is, interestingly enough, where we see a thriving business model in scavenging old droids for parts. I think your position on this is fundamentally flawed by your base assumptions that 1) the business model is what you want it to be (with planned obsolescence, thriving repair aftermarket business, and regular, speedy, and accepted wear and replacement of critical components) and 2) that because it has to be what you want it to be, certain things *must* be true (like droids being unable to survive very long at all without an extensive infrastructure network delivering a constant supply of consumable parts on par with a human requirement for air, food, and water). While not necessarily contradicted in the lore, neither is such a condition spelled out or supported, so it's somewhat circular logic to say, essentially, "A droid can't function for long without replacement parts because a droid needs a regular supply of replacement parts to continue to function." Planned obsolescence may or may not exist, that's an assumption on your part based on real world tech markets, and as we can see, the tech situation is drastically different in the SW setting. We see plenty of old droids still in service, which implies that they're able to do the job passably well compared to a newer droid and that they're able to remain serviceable for a long time. This implies one (or more) of a few things: Perhaps droids are, well, just that durable. Maybe the tech is old enough and stable enough that they just build them to last, and last they do. This would suggest that the market is simply not at or near a saturation point and that, even after many decades, demand still outpaces supply to an extent that the droid manufacturers are still striving to produce as many droids as the possibly can, because they know they'll sell. They don't need the aftermarket of parts and supplies because the new droids are their big money maker and they last a long time anyway. Incremental product improvements are a fact of life, but there's no incentive to stop making a previous model or to build any sort of obsolescence into it. Perhaps new droids are prohibitively expensive, creating a thriving used & refurbished market. These old droids we see are rebuilds that can be cobbled together, rewired, and flashed, and earn a droid tech decent pay. This doesn't necessarily disagree with point #1 either, as "too expensive for the average Joe" isn't the same as "too expensive to sell at all". It's certainly possible that, even a galactic droid company can only fill 20% of the demand for new droids, making used resale, refurb, and repair a very lucrative spin-off business. In this scenario, once again, there's no incentive for the manufacturer to market OEM parts. Planned obsolescence simply isn't a thing. We know that tech in SW is comparatively stable when stacked against Earth's, so there's not as much, if any, drastic improvements in a linear product line (beyond eliminating flaws, a la the R5). Without significant improvements, there's a far bigger demographic in their markets that has an older piece of technology that is in no practical way inferior to a newer offering. The new model isn't necessarily better, it's just different. Innovation from the droid manufacturers comes in the form of very small improvements on the process end, not the product end, that are multiplied out based on their scale of production. Similar to point #1, maybe even if droids are not so durable as they might seem, perhaps the market is simply so bullish on the galactic scale that the droids we see on the outer rim are the rare few that made it out that far, with the core, colonies, and inner rim gobbling up all the production that the manufacturers can throw at them. They don't last, but a new one isn't too expensive, so it's more practical to scrap it and buy new. Since this is the state of that coreward economy, there's zero market for the old droids, and most are simply junked. This is an opportunity for freighter captains to set up to take holds full of scrapped droids out to outlying rim worlds to sell to scrappers who use the core's trash to supply their stock in trade. This may very well happen, but the details would be down to economics: how much does the run cost compared to how much they can sell a hold for...and what, if anything, does said rim world offer as a return cargo that a core world would want?
  8. Or...the costs associated with repair and upkeep beyond the basics are not economically attractive when compared to replacing them. Essentially, the automation, economy of scale, quality controls, process control, and distribution network of a galaxy-spanning droid production company are so advanced that it'd cost the average citizen more in terms of time, parts, and training to repair a droid vs. scrapping it and buying a new one. This could also be a part of the business model for a droid production company: offer new models at a low margin, offer parts but at a crazy markup. Similar to how you can get printers now for cheap, but the ink is what makes the printer company the money. So to use a rough analogy: it'd be like having a car in a world where fuel is free (or so close to free as to not be a significant factor in a buying decision). The next biggest recurring maintenance costs for ownership would likely be oil changes, brakes, and tires. If you're a car company in this situation, the best thing you can do is to make and sell your cars at a low markup, but have proprietary oil (likely a closed system that requires specialized tools and equipment to change), and proprietary brakes and tires (and really, all the rest of the parts as well)...which you may or may not sell, but if you do, you're gouging any buyer of them, to the point that many customers find it easier to use a car till it begins to fail, then just buy a new one. Planned obsolescence isn't necessarily tech dependent, but just because it's a factor in the business model doesn't necessarily mean it's a factor in strict survival terms.
  9. ...and I think you're making a biased assumption to suit your position. Again, if you're going to stack the deck against a droid by putting them in an environment that would corrode them for a duration that would allow for all of their parts to corrode beyond use, you've got to place your hypothetical human in those same conditions, with those same provisions. If you place a human (with no special survival skills) in a salt marsh with a droid (with no special survival programming/equipment...but keep in mind that a standard R2 unit is apparently capable of complete immersion in a swamp), with no resources for support (no spare parts, protective coatings, power, etc. but also no food, fresh water, clothing, etc.) it is unreasonable to believe that the droid will rust away into oblivion before the human dies. I'm not saying that a droid body will last forever in any environment, only that the droid body is far more resilient and capable of protecting it's core programming than a human body is capable of preserving the life it holds. Well that's two very different questions. The first, as has been said, is the classic Ship of Thesus thought experiment, with answers and arguments since it was first proposed. The second, first of all, implies that the memory in the SW galaxy degrades in a similar fashion to our own (which I'd have to see some proof of before accepting that premise), but even at that, it's a wholly subjective question with no right or wrong answer based on your use of the word "sufficiently". Sufficiently for what? For the droid to power up and function? If so, that dictates that your primary (possibly sole) criterion for resemblance is if the droid does, in fact, power up. It's a moving target, and one that, once defined, answers the question in its very definition. Those are two assumptions that not only do I not make, but I also reject in terms of a valid platform for a position in the question asked in this thread. In fact, allowing droids to be interpreted as being vulnerable to similar environmental impacts to similar degrees as modern mechanical creations is a significant concession that's really not supported by what we see in the films, which shows a level of droid tech that is more advanced and robust than anything in as-common use in the real world. It would be reasonable to suggest that an R2 unit has internals that are fully sealed as to be impervious to all environmental factors. At that point, the debate is pretty much over, as the R2 could, in theory, stay shut down in any environment anywhere that humans are capable of living, and last more or less indefinitely, barring accident. Certainly far longer than any human lifespan. Further, your second assumption is fundamentally flawed. You're saying that a creature whose physiology gives it biological characteristics drastically different from humans can be safely assumed to have a physiology that is largely similar to humans. While this assumption *may* hold true for some near human or humanoid races, I don't think you can make the same argument for the Gen'dai, who Wookieepedia describes as follows: "the Gen'Dai were virtually a formless jumble of corded muscle and nerve bundles" "The only distinct feature of the Gen'Dai were their heads" "Lacking the vulnerable vital organs of most species, including hearts, and lungs" " they could regrow lost limbs or other body parts in only a few minutes.[2] Unlike most species, Gen'Dai had a nervous system which was distributed throughout the body in the form of millions of nerve clusters" "the Gen'Dai did not possess a heart, their circulatory system functioned by way of a series of capillaries and muscular contractions which pushed blood through the body" Then you have the Anzati: "They were an extremely long-lived species, also possessing regenerative capabilities beyond those of the average humanoid." "they had no natural biorhythm; that is to say, no pulse, and as a result, no body heat. Therefore, it was a total mystery as to how their circulatory system functioned.[2]" "While Anzati tended to possess exceptional might and often startling reflexes, at best, they could reflect thrice that of a pinnacle Human's athletic ability; at worst, they merely had the attributes of an ordinary Human." While there's no accounting for subjectivity, to me, this is enough to suggest that both of these species had a physiology drastically different from that of a human, and as such, any discussion of a droid's effective lifespan compared to one of these species is a discussion completely separate from the one proposed here.
  10. I think you're approaching the question from a pre-biased position and casting all comparisons in a favorable light. In this case, first of all, you're making the assumption that support for mechanicals is objectively more expensive to maintain than that of a biological, which is at best debatable and at worst completely false. True, there is a need for fuel/energy, but unlike our world, the SW galaxy does not seem to feel any sort of a fuel or energy scarcity at all, except in specific and highly localized conditions. Where fuel costs are a significant expense of ownership of any vehicle (likely the second largest cost for a newer vehicle next to the cost of the vehicle itself, and often *the* biggest cost for a vehicle with a longer life) it's a simple afterthought for most vehicles in the SW galaxy, hardly worth mentioning. Indeed, small portable fusion generators are fairly common and effectively provide an unlimited source of power for small devices and droids. Contrast this to a biological that has needs, in most cases requiring high levels of development, that range from (for humans) breatheable air, potable water, food (and a balanced diet at that), and sanitation. Each of these requires specific provisions, and their consumption is constant and, given the size of the individual, required in large amounts. Even assuming that air is freely available (not a given in SW and if it isn't the droid is by far more equipped to survive), a human will die after 5-10 days without water. Take a normally operating droid, and, without outside interference, they can run on their own internal reserves for, at the very least 5-10 months. Let's move the goalpost once again and assume that breathable air and potable water are convenient and unlimited (which, for anyone with survival training would be a manageable situation from that point on), there's still a need for food. Even using your hunter-gatherer, their whole existence is devoted to hunting and gathering, basically devoting all of their energies to subsistence. Indeed it was the development of agriculture that allowed primitive man to settle down in one place, produce enough food to feed themselves plus have some leftover, and ultimately gave him the free time to work on things like simple machines like the wheel, social developments like towns, and other "evolved" accomplishments. So if your surviving is depending on hunting and gathering, it's a subsistence existence. The droid, aside from generally freely available energy, wants for little, and is capable of working on improvements and other pursuits in place of securing food. Again, I think you're approaching this from a position of seeing what you want to see because it supports your position. First off, "self-repair" and "preventative/defensive measures" are two distinctly different factors. While skin is certainly a great defense against many possible health concerns, many are concerns that droids don't have to worry about (airborne pathogens, temperature extremes, etc.). Further, skin is often an incomplete defense, except in the most clement of environments, necessitating additional clothing and shelter, which are both processed products again requiring a support base. Then there's "self-repair"...this is biological healing, first-aid, and treatment of any other physical issues, while for a droid it's mechanical repairs and software diagnostics. For most minor issues, the droid would be able to not only perform replacement/repair procedures on itself, but more importantly, would be able to accurately self-diagnose. That human gets an awful abdominal pain, how do they know if they've got a ruptured spleen or some gas? Which brings up a salient point: the things that can go wrong in a biological process are as complicated and limitless as the cells in their body, whereas the things that can go wrong with a droid are fairly limited in comparison. True, a harsh environment like a desert will wear down a droid to the point that they require repairs in short order, but in the same environment, given the same resources, the human fares far, far worse. The extreme heat during the day and cold at night will sap their energy reserves, the heat and dryness will require even more water (which is terribly scarce), and their skin will burn, chafe, and blister within days without clothing or shelter (but by the time it starts to get really bad, it won't matter because they'll be dying of thirst). Meanwhile, our droid sees a lot of degradation in fine moving parts, but has no need of water, no internal body temperature to maintain, no food needed, and is more or less totally impervious to as much light and heat as the sun wants to shine down on it. And it is true that healthy cells degrade overall more slowly than metal corrodes (in some environments), but it's equally important to remember that a droid isn't going to contract an infection that will start a process counter to healing, and that while some environmental impacts (like grit) will be of more concern to a droid than a human, there are others (like temperature) that are of far less concern (any temp extreme that would give a droid cause for concern would be lethal to a human). And while it's true that any damage to a droid will need to be addressed by repair as opposed to healing, in most environments, a human will still need clothing...which will be subject to the same challenges. Completely agreed. Agreed on the first point, but not the second. If you want to use the "new being in another body" argument, you must also factor in cell replacement in humans. While it's true that many brain cells will have a lifespan of many decades, others last mere days, or even hours before dying, being flushed out with waste, and replaced with new. It doesn't seem fair to fault a droid for getting replacement parts, even all of the "body" parts, with the same memory core, but to give the human a pass because the parts are too small to see with the naked eye and get replaced in a less discrete fashion. Without sufficient data relating to the physiology of various long-lived species, I don't think it's rationally feasible to include them in such a discussion. This extended life may simply be due to better genetic transcription (a more efficient memory core), a more robust body, or any number of other factors. It may require disproportionately more resources, or be predicated upon some specific macguffin (do the anzati require feeding on other sentient beings to attain their long lifespan?). Ultimately, we don't know enough about how other species work to make a meaningful comparison (unless you do, in which case, that could be a very interesting discussion...). That being said, there's absolutely no competition in terms of potential lifespan, given the "software" nature of a droid's non-physical characteristics. We've seen that a droid's system can be downloaded, saved, moved, transmitted, uploaded, and used across computer networks in various bodies. Based on that evidence, any droid with access to a data network would be effectively immortal. Ultimately, I think it really comes down to a few key factors: the situation into which you're placing our theoretical being and droid, the specific model of droid, and the resources they have access to. In *any* modern civilized area, the droid has the edge. In any sort of hostile environment in which resources are limited, it then becomes a question of which resources are limited. In some scenarios, the resources that are limited may favor the human, but in others they will favor the droid...and in some, both will be affected equally. In this case, I think the only fair comparisons are to have similar subjective challenges for each individual as opposed to one resource (as a lack of spare parts means nothing to a human and a lot to a droid, but the lack of water means nothing to the droid but a lot to the human)...and in that sort of scenario, droids tend to be able to survive far longer without a resupply of their various needs than any human.
  11. I'm not so sure that this is a fair or accurate ocmparison. At the very least, its premise assumes that certain variables from our world hold true in the SW universe, which is tenuous at best. Also, there's subjectivity to account for: naturally *I* would pay more to regain/maintain my own health than to fix my car...I'm me. If my car breaks down I can get a new one and go on with my life. From the car's perspective (if it were sentient), I'm sure it'd be far more concerned about getting that replacement U-joint than my allergy medicine, after all, if it can keep up with it's maintenance and avoid accidents, it can keep running long after my allergies have sent me to take a dirt nap. That's not a fair or accurate comparison, and the fact that we are willing to spend more on personal healthcare than car repair has no real bearing on the discussion. Another point that mitigates some of this position is the slow pace of SW tech. In many cases it is objectively incorrect that biologicals are more cost effective or that they stay in service longer (in fact, I'd argue that this is incorrect in the real world as well for a wide variety of jobs...otherwise, why would factories be getting away from humans on assembly lines in favor of robotic automation). Industrial Automaton makes R2 astromech droids, and they're quite common over at least 4+ decades just from what we see in the movies, let alone the EU. It's not a huge leap of speculation to assume that it's far, far easier to find replacement parts for a given popular model (or a mechanical equivalent replacement)...or to be able to make or have made a replacement...to ensure a service life of hundreds of years than it is to treat illnesses, mend injuries, and develop cultured or cybernetic replacement parts for failing biological systems. In fact, through the lens of the SW universe, biological entities are far, far more ephemeral than even a simple datapad.
  12. Yeah, before things get too far, I'm going to bow out as well. It's nothing against anyone here, but after a month of not really having anything to do and not really being needed or adding anything to the group, I'm just not really feeling inspired to continue following along, waiting for a chance to get involved. I've also just kind of lost interest in the character itself. So before the story got to a point where my character became a meaningful part, I feel it's probably easier on the other players an GM to just bow out now, when my character doesn't even need to be written out, as they've not had any impact on the story to this point. Hopefully there'll be another opportunity in the future, and thanks for the chance to game with you guys!
  13. Yeah, but in this case it wasn't the same as the rpg format of everyone working with the GM to tell a story ... What about the GM working with the players to tell a story? You're restating what I said and acting like there's a difference? That's a weak argument tactic (distraction, and poorly done at that), even for you. My point, as I thought was evident, is that what happens to one character, away from the game, after the point where that character has any impact whatsoever on the group...by definition has no impact on the group. At that point, bogging down a group session for personal satisfaction is just taking away from the rest of the group's fun to satisfy one's own personal jollies. It's tantamount to bringing up their fantasy football team: it might be mildly interesting, but it's not subject to GM approval or disapproval (so why bother seeking it out?), and in the vast majority of cases nobody else cares. The whole situation that brought the thread about smacks of histrionic display. It may not be the case, but it's telling that, even from the heavily biased view we're given, "the audience" is still highly divided. Honestly, were I the OP's GM, they'd have probably made a similar post, as I'd have told them, "I don't care. Make up whatever story you want, but no, we're not wasting time on it here." Or perhaps to avoid offending sensitive personalities, "Yes AND...that's something you should do on your own time, away from the group, the rest of whom want to get on with things that are of interest to everyone."
  14. Yeah, but in this case it wasn't the same as the rpg format of everyone working with the GM to tell a story, it was a player wanting a very specific bit of fluff for a character that wasn't even going to be part of things to follow. Were I the GM, I wouldn't have said no, I'd have said, "If the character is leaving the game, do what you want, I don't care." It's something that has no bearing on the game being used to drive a wedge into the group...if that's not pointless I don't know what is.
  15. Personally, I wouldn't, but I also don't think it'd break the game if you decided to do it. A sensible limitation may be to stipulate that only the first 20 XP can be donated, or only 50% of any earned amount, or some such. The reason I wouldn't allow it is because it's not really an accurate reflection of reality. If a friend and I get kayaks at the beginning of summer and I'm out paddling twice a week, all summer, and by the end of it, he still hasn't gotten his yak wet, by September, my kayaking skill would and should increase, but his shouldn't just because we both want him to be better at it. That said, though, I fully concede that the way the system works doesn't really prevent this either, as characters may still invest XP in skills they've never used, which introduces the same issues. Just my personal take on it.
  • Create New...